Nearly tripling national park entry fees not in the parks' or the public's best interest
John Samuelson was one of our more colorful homesteaders in the Mojave. He was a Swedish immigrant who prospected in the Joshua Tree area, setting up home for himself and his wife on a tiny hill where the remains of a bed frame still serve as a bleak reminder of their time here.
The Samuelsons began homesteading this land near Quail Springs in 1927. He had worked at a nearby gold mine run by another rather colorful local homesteader, Bill Keys, veteran of the infamous Battle of Wingate Pass. But Samuelson is not known for his homesteading or his mining.
Living in relative isolation with no wi-fi, no cell signal, no Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter, Samuelson, with his rudimentary grasp of the English language that rivals anything on social media today, began inscribing the boulders of his little hill with his political. religious, and social philosophy. His carvings reveal a somewhat jaded outlook on life, especially with respect to those in power, from the perspective of a common working man. I wonder what he would have to say about current developments taking place around his former home today?
Shortly after increasing the price of a lifetime Senior Pass to our national parks by a factor of eight, the National Park Service is now proposing dramatic entry fee increases for the 17 national parks with the highest levels of visitation. Parks impacted by the proposed increase include Joshua Tree, Grand Canyon, Arches, Bryce Canyon, Zion, and Canyonlands in the Southwest, along with Denali, Glacier, Grand Teton, Olypic, Sequoia and Kings Canyon, Yellowstone, Yosemite, Acadia, Mount Rainier, Rocky Mountain, and Shenandoah, elsewhere across the country.
Under the new proposal, the entry fee for a vehicle would increase drastically to $70, with motorcycle fees rising to $50, and bicycle or foot entry would rise to $30. A pass good for annual entry to the park would rise from $40 to $75...
Currently, the entry fee for one vehicle (non-commercial), to Joshua Tree National Park, is $25, and covers a seven day time span. A motorcycle, bicycle, or walk-in entry fee is $12, and non-commercial groups are $12 per person. Under the new proposal, the entry fee for a vehicle would increase drastically to $70, with motorcycle fees rising to $50, and bicycle or foot entry would rise to $30. A pass good for annual entry to the park would rise from $40 to $75, while the America the Beautiful - National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass, good for all national parks and most other federal lands, would remain at $80. Tour groups would also see steep increases. The proposed rates are for peak visitor seasons.
The news release from the National Park Service labels this proposed rate increase as "part of its commitment to improve the visitor experience and ensure America's national parks are protected in perpetuity." The proposal may be open to other interpretations.
“The infrastructure of our national parks is aging and in need of renovation and restoration,” said U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke. “Targeted fee increases at some of our most-visited parks will help ensure that they are protected and preserved in perpetuity and that visitors enjoy a world-class experience that mirrors the amazing destinations they are visiting. We need to have the vision to look at the future of our parks and take action in order to ensure that our grandkids' grandkids will have the same if not better experience than we have today. Shoring up our parks' aging infrastructure will do that.”
We're all for supporting our parks and guaranteeing they are around for our grandchildren - and their grandchildren - to enjoy and appreciate. But while the DOI estimates the new price increases could increase national park revenue by $70 million per year - a 34 percent increase over the $200 million in fees collected in Fiscal Year 2016, that may be based upon faulty logic, a logic that doesn't think tripling fees will impact visitation numbers.
Here in California, when trick-or-treaters go out on Halloween they may get the usual treats, but the next morning, a not so sweet trick goes into effect on the first of November - a 12 cent or higher increase in the price of a gallon of gas. Licensing fees will also increase.
With most of Joshua Tree National Park's visitation originating from southern California, increased gas and vehicle licensing fees, coupled with increased park entry fees, will almost certainly result in significant reductions in park visitorship. No doubt, that would be popular with the park's administration, as the hefty increases in annual visitation we've seen over the past several years have been difficult to address and there has been a toll, not only on the park itself, but on those living near it.
That said, the local economy of the Joshua Tree Gateway Communities has benefited greatly from the increase in visitation to nearly three million annual visitors. Should the number of visitors decrease significantly, it will, no doubt, have a direct impact upon the hospitality industry here, as well as on the Airbnb economy of the area. That will result in an indirect negative impact upon other businesses and the job market here.
On another level, the fee increases are economically regressive. They deny national park access to those who need it most - the poor and working class. The wealthy won't be significantly impacted by any of the proposed fee increases, nor the jump in the gas tax and vehicle licensing. But working class families, those who benefit from having access for inexpensive outings at our national parks will have to make hard choices, and will see their access to these parks denied during the best parts of the year to visit them.
This creates another, less obvious, negative impact - it strains the connection between the American public and their public lands. If the goal of the fee increase is to guarantee the parks and their infrastructure survive for future generations of Americans to enjoy, money can only be part of the equation. If many, or most, Americans feel they can no longer access the national parks they love, how will that impact their connection with, and their support for, those parks? Sure, the Grand Canyon is an awesome spectacle, but if you can't afford to take your kids there, does it matter if they do uranium mining around the park? Or fracking and drilling around other parks? If you no longer go to the parks, will your children be motivated to save them when Congress decides to transfer them to state and local control, opening them up for sale or lease for natural resource extraction and development?
That's a chance the Department of the Interior, especially under the current administration, is more than willing to accept, or even hope for. The boondoggle review of national monuments conducted this year, coupled with a documented contempt for science and scorn for environmental protections clearly reveals this administration's priorities. How could a billionaire president who spends his outdoors time on private golf courses and who is actively trying to dismantle a number of national monuments created by former presidents truly desire to preserve our national parks for working class Americans?
That was a rhetorical question folks. Those picked to lead the relevant departments and agencies, and the actions taken so far, do not bode well for the future of our public lands. Some readers will argue it is better to turn over these lands to state and local control, seeing that as somehow more responsive and a better choice than the federal government. I would argue, along with common sense, that state and local agencies are not well suited for the task, as they do not have the resources of the federal government. If public lands management agencies are having a difficult time fulfilling their missions now, with larger federal budgets, then how will a smaller staff, with a smaller budget, succeed? And more importantly, since a transfer of federal lands essentially steals land that belongs to all of us and gives it to a small segment of us, how do all Americans benefit, either from a transfer, or from the loss of those lands if the state and local agencies cannot afford to continue to manage the lands?
Sounds to me like some folks want to steal from my grandchildren, not guarantee them the natural beauty, historical preservation, and recreational opportunities provided by our national parks and monuments.
But back to the fee increase in question, there is a direct and simple way, for the present time, to deal with an increase should it happen - purchase an annual America the Beautiful public lands pass for $80. It's only $5 more than your one-week entry to Joshua Tree National Park under this proposal, and it will get you access to numerous parks and public lands. That is, until the administration realizes that this is going to cut into their fee increases and they decide to raise the price of that pass eight-fold, as they did to the lifetime Senior Pass this summer.
Make your voice heard
A public comment period on the peak-season entrance fee proposal is open from October 24 to November 23, 2017, on the NPS Planning, Environment and Public Comment (PEPC) website https://parkplanning.nps.gov/proposedpeakseasonfeerates. If you're old fashioned, written comments can be sent to 1849 C Street, NW, Mail Stop: 2346 Washington, DC 20240.
Share your comments with us by sending them to publisher@sunrunnersw.com. We may include them with this story or a follow-up story on this topic.
My guess is John Samuelson would be looking for a new boulder, chisel in hand, right about now...
